RTC/Market Area Mobility Study RTC-Market Area Mobility Study Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
February 2020 DRAFT RTC/Market Area Mobility Study RTC-Market Area Mobility Study Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council Draft Report TBD DRAFT This document was prepared with financial assistance from the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation through the New York State Department of Transportation. The Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council is solely responsible for its contents. ____________________________________________________________________________ For further information contact: Michael D. Alexander, AICP, Project Manager James D’Agostino, Director Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council 126 N. Salina St., 100 Clinton Square, Suite 100, Syracuse, NY 13202 PHONE: (315) 422-5716 FAX: (315) 422-7753 www.smtcmpo.org RTC-Market Area Mobility Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RTC-Market Area Mobility Study As shown in Figure A - the Study identifies The City of Syracuse (City) wants to make it four priority crossing locations for mobility safer and easier for Northside residents to improvements: walk/bike across Hiawatha Boulevard and Park Street to access the Regional Market, Hiawatha Boulevard/Park Street the Regional Transportation Center, and Hiawatha Boulevard/Carbon Street Destiny USA. This planning effort builds Hiawatha Boulevard/Tex Simone upon a mobility project installed by the City Drive/First North Street – the Park Street Neighborhood Greenway. Park Street/NBT Bank Parkway/Harborside Drive. The RTC-Market Area Mobility Study (Study) is a planning-level assessment that informs Detailed (planning-level) concept plans are the community about potential options to presented in Chapter 8 that show how improve mobility across Hiawatha sidewalk, bike lanes, sharrows, and shared Boulevard and Park Street. As a secondary use paths (SUP) could link and improve focus, the Study identifies “big picture” mobility. Most options are compatible with ideas to improve connections to facilities each other and can be combined. Some that exist beyond the primary study area. options are complex and may require These ideas will inform other planning additional study and engineering expertise. efforts by the city, county, and state. DRAFTTwo lane consolidation scenarios are Mobility improvement options are based on presented for the Hiawatha Boulevard/Park a comprehensive planning-level Street intersection. A preliminary analysis assessment, which involved roadway suggested that the southbound exclusive owners (i.e., the City of Syracuse and the left, thru, right lanes (and the eastbound New York State Department of exclusive left and through lanes) could be Transportation). Other involved agencies combined. The northbound left-through included the Syracuse-Onondaga County lane is also modified as a left-only lane. Planning Agency and Centro. Additionally, Presented options, including the shared the SMTC met with several neighborhood used path concept, may not require lane groups and conducted public outreach at consolidation. the market. In total, approximately 80-100 community members participated in these Chapter 8 also shows “big picture” mobility discussions. This collaborative process connection ideas to link the Market Area to ensured that the options were well-vetted the: Onondaga Creekwalk, Park Street with the road owners and the community. Bikeway, the Beartrap Creek Trail, etc. These ideas are presented for informational purposes and may require further study. i RTC-Market Area Mobility Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure A – Priority Intersection Context Map and Regional Mobility Improvement Ideas DRAFT ii DRAFT RTC-Market Area Mobility Study Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Problem Overview............................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 7 1.5 Study Area ........................................................................................................................................... 7 1.6 Mobility Study Scope .......................................................................................................................... 9 1.7 Study Advisory Committee ................................................................................................................. 9 1.8 Public Involvement Plan ...................................................................................................................... 9 1.9 Project Purpose Summary................................................................................................................... 9 2 - Local Planning Studies and InitiativesDRAFT .................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Hiawatha-Lodi BOA Plan ................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Rezone Syracuse ............................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Park Street Greenway ....................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Bike Commuter Corridor Study ......................................................................................................... 12 2.5 Syracuse Bike Plan ............................................................................................................................. 13 2.6 Dunkin Donuts .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.7 Syracuse Lakefront Area LWRP ......................................................................................................... 14 2.8 Lakefront LWRP ................................................................................................................................. 14 2.9 SMART 1 Study .................................................................................................................................. 14 2.10 SMTC Pedestrian Model.................................................................................................................. 15 2.11 NYSDOT - I-81 Viaduct Project Preliminary DEIS ............................................................................. 15 2.12 Summary of Plans & Initiatives ....................................................................................................... 16 3 - Land Use, Demographics, and LEP ......................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................ 17 1 | P a g e DRAFT RTC-Market Area Mobility Study 3.2 Demographics ................................................................................................................................... 18 3.3 Limited English Proficiency, Languages spoken at home, and Environmental Justice ..................... 21 3. 3 Demographic & Land Use Summary ................................................................................................ 23 4 - Existing Railroad, Transit, Bicycle/Pathway Facilities ............................................................................ 24 4.1 Railroad Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 24 4.2 Transit Facilities ................................................................................................................................ 26 4.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ....................................................................................................... 27 4.3 Summary of Railroad, Transit, and Bicycle/Pathway Facilities ......................................................... 31 5 - Road Facilities and Crash Assessment ................................................................................................... 32 5.1 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................. 32 5.2 Crash Assessment Findings ............................................................................................................... 33 5.3 Hiawatha Boulevard East .................................................................................................................. 38 5.3 Park Street ......................................................................................................................................... 38 5.3 Study Area Intersections ................................................................................................................... 41 5.5 Road Facility & Crash Assessment Summary ...................................................................................